Opponents of Retroactive Immunity Live To Fight Another Day
That the United States Senate would even have to debate whether to uphold the rule of law is infuriating enough. But two weeks ago, the contrast in priorities became too much: as the Senate refused to address the tide of foreclosures impacting more than 8,000 people every day, it was poised and ready to provide immunity to giant corporations that may have broken the law.
So, I did what I felt I had to: I said no.
By blocking a vote on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the fight to stop retroactive immunity goes on -- for another week anyway. The Senate will take the bill up again this week as it returns from the July 4th recess.
Of course, such procedural jujitsu was merely the latest twist in a fight that has now spanned nearly a year. During that time, I have used every forum available to me -- from the Senate floor to the presidential campaign to town halls around the country -- to talk about the importance of the rule of law and why a seemingly obscure dispute between government and corporations in our legal system is critical to upholding it.
A brief overview: we learned after September 11, 2001 that giant telecom companies worked with this administration to compile Americans' private, domestic communications records into a database of enormous scale and scope. The Bush administration appears to have convinced those corporations to spy on Americans for five years, in secret and without a warrant.
That we know this happened is not because the government told us -- they say the matter is classified. And it is not because one of the telecoms told us. We may not have known any of this at all were it not for serious investigative journalists. And we wouldn't know how deep the problem really went without an Internet technician by the name of Mark Klein, a 22-year veteran of AT&T who one day at work found a switch that channeled Internet traffic culled from millions of living rooms, bedrooms, kitchens and offices across the nation to a secret room operated by the National Security Agency. Mr. Klein was old enough to remember when a law was passed to prevent this sort of unchecked spying operation from happening:
FISA -- a law written back in 1978 in the wake of Watergate that ensured the government had both the tools it needed to defend the country and a process in place for judicial review to put checks on executive authority.
Most agree that this law needs to be modernized, as it has been many times over the years. But this time, the president is asking Congress to do something much more: to shield the telecoms from any judicial review of their actions. He wants Congress to declare spying without a warrant both constitutional and necessary to defend this country.
It is neither.
That is why I have done everything I can to stop retroactive immunity from being included in the FISA bill. As written, this bill does not say, "Trust the American people." It does not say, "Trust the courts and judges and juries to come to just decisions" about what happened at the telecoms. Rather, retroactive immunity sends this message:
"Trust me" -- a message that comes straight from the mouth of President Bush. I would never take "trust me" for an answer, not even in the best of times. Not even from a president on Mount Rushmore.
Besides, what exactly is the basis for that trust? Retroactive immunity may be a disgrace in itself, but it is merely the latest link in a long chain of abuses when it comes to contempt for the rule of law -- from the Justice Department basing its work on political calculations, to the shame of Abu Ghraib, to the passage of the Military Commissions Act, which sanctioned torture. The list goes on and on.
To many around the world, that is what America has become. Where Normandy, the Marshall Plan, and the Nuremberg trials invoked the image of America for previous generations, those coming of age today will now think of Guantanamo, waterboarding, and torture. People now have a basis upon which to ask whether the president serves the law or the law serves the president.
Did the telecoms break the law? I don't know.
But I am sure that if we pass retroactive immunity we'll never know. A handful of favored corporations will remain unchallenged. Their arguments will never be heard in a court of law. The truth behind this unprecedented domestic spying will never see light. And the cases will be closed forever.
I'm under no illusion that we will be able to keep this bill from the president's desk forever; two weeks ago, I was disappointed that we could only muster 15 votes out of the necessary 41 to block consideration of FISA.
But every second we can continue to raise this issue and hold this Administration's feet to the fire for its contempt for the rule of law these last seven years is another opportunity to keep asking:
When we undermine the rule of law, do we make our nation more secure -- or less?
Over the next few days, that's the question we'll be asking. But I think we already know the answer.
Follow Sen. Chris Dodd on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SenChrisDodd
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Thank You Senator Dodd,
If this bill passes it will be a truly devastating tragedy for our nation.
I like your comment about Mt. Rushmore. I keep saying I don't care if its the Dalai Lama, leave my civil liberties alone.
I do not understand why the current FISA needs to be changed in the first place. It seems to me to be in perfect order for the President to order wiretapping for national security if he so chooses by giving him the retroactive warrant. Is three days not enough? If that is so then make it five, why must there be such drastic changes?
I am wondering how you are feeling on Obama's position now after his vow to filibuster during the primary.
I keep reading on HuffPO and other blogs many people defending Senator Obama's NEW position on FISA, saying we must trust him. We don't trust a person, we trust the Constitution. To me the President is a place holder on the office which is meant to safeguard the Constitution while the country is being governed. The office is deserving of respect but not all holders of the office deserve such respect. If a President undermines the Constitution (which means attacki9ng it) he is guilty of crimes. Anyone who aspires to be President should be fighting for the rights of the citizenry by protecting the constitution, not supporting an unconstitutional law.
Obama is not undermining the Constitution. He is against granting retroactive immunity. He is only one Senator, who is running for President right now. He is workng behind the scenes to get the amemdment in, or get the bill off the table. When he is President he will have the powers to revisit it, or if worse comes to worse, and the whole thing goes through, institute criminal charges.
Bless you for your superb FISA leadership and defense of the Constitution and rule of law, Senator Dodd. Outstanding post.
I haven't the words to properly thank you, nor have I the words to sufficiently condemn the behavior of so many of your Democratic and Republican colleagues in the Senate and House.
Think of how selfless, honorable whistleblowers have been "rewarded" by this Democratic Congress...
There don't seem to be words enough to describe the shameful, unconscionable shirking of responsibility of so many of those in power in our federal legislature, who simply 'can't be bothered' to do what they are UNIQUELY empowered to do on our behalf: Above all, to ensure that our Constitution remains meaningfully alive by HONORING its terms and by ENFORCING its (welcome OR unwelcome) LIMITS on the activities of the federal government. If those limits are UNwelcome (Senator Whitehouse, and others), then AMEND the Constitution, don't VIOLATE it in an arrogant 'father knows best' manner of wielding power over the people who haven't the finances to threaten your gerrymandered seats.
As Abe Lincoln said so well and wisely more than a century ago:
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."
Only 40 Senators are needed to join Chris Dodd on Tuesday - in voting NO on the next CLOTURE motion - to begin to restore justice, liberty, and the higher humanitarian principles that this nation once espoused and held dear.
Senator, you are my hero on this issue.
.
@Senator Dodd,
It seems to me that what is being said with this bill is that it is OK to violate American's privacy for purposes of tax collection, but it is NOT OK to violate American's privacy to keep them alive and safe from terrorism?
Further, what I read in your FAQ seems to imply that the $10K/200 rule applies yearly.
So that if an American has over 200 transactions online ( a number that someone could reach during a the holiday season) than all their financial information pertaining to the transactions for the entire year is sent to the government..
The government will know what you bought, when you bought it and how many times you bought it..
How is this not a violation of an American's privacy?
Consider this. If the Bush Administration had proposed such sweeping financial reporting measures to combat terrorism, what would your reaction be???
Michale.....
For the record, I was referring to the House Foreclosure bill that ReElectNoOne and I mentioned previously...
Michale.....
For the record, your post is off topic.
See Chris Dodd's Profile
Banks are not reporting individual transactions to the IRS, and so the proposal does not raise personal consumer data privacy issues. Banks are reporting the aggregate gross dollar amount the merchant received from credit card sales during the year. Only the IRS has access to the information reporting data. This proposal asks for the same type of personal taxpayer information that other information reports currently required by the IRS contain. Merchants voluntarily enter into credit card arrangements with banks and voluntarily provide private information during that process. Banks are subject to their own privacy laws and policies. Existing law already strictly protects the privacy of taxpayer records.
Here's the problem. The chances of winning a case against Telecoms who were following the orders of the POTUS is slim at best. And then we would all be screwed. We will have lost on two fronts. I trust Barack to dio the right thing once elected. If I'm wrong I'll vote against Barack in 4 years. That's America.
Actually the judge hearing these civil cases has already told the telecoms that case law on this issue is squarely on the side of these plaintiffs. That's why the telecoms and Bush want congress to step in. They KNOW they are guilty.
How we would be any more "screwed" by hearing the evidence in court then by never getting to court in the first place?
Here's the problem. The chances of winning a case against Telecoms who were following the orders of the POTUS is slim at best. And then we would all be screwed. We will have lost on two fronts. "I trust Barack to dio the right thing once elected. If I'm wrong I'll vote against Barack in 4 years. That's America." - Keith 52
It's sad to see that so many Obama supporters seem to have adopted the Bush "fear" and "trust me" mantra we've heard for the last 7 years. Rather than do any of the heavy lifting necessary to hold our politicians accountable before we give them our vote you guys throw your hands up in the air and tell us that if you're wrong you'll shut the barn door after the horse is out. How reassuring.
“Those who expect to reap the blessings of liberty must undergo the fatigues of supporting it”
Thomas Paine quotes
Let me add that the big picture is not so much about finding them guilty as it is about the American people learning just how much criminal activity was going on. Discovery in a civil case can do that. And that is exactly why, in my opinion, that Bush and the telecoms are fighting this disclosure with everything they have--including retroactive immunity. Bush can stop criminal prosecutions with blanket pardons. But only congress can make the law retroactive.
If these cases never get heard, we will never find out the extent of Bush's crimes.
Respectfully, Senator, the public is aware that this was going on in February of 2001, not "after 9-11".
Surely there are parliamentary procedures or other Senate customs that could keep the bill from being voted on by this Congress at all - the so-called "secret hold" comes to mind - are there not? Sending the bill to each and every committee that could conceivably have something to say? Hold hearings? Surely something can be done without the coalition of the fear mongers.
The United States Constitution contains checks and balances to prevent tyranny. FISA imposed checks and balances to prevent overreaching. George Bush & Co. overreached & skipped those checks and balances. The law was broken--a law that was designed to protect the liberties we are supposedly fighting for. We have reason to fear tyranny from within our country as much as tyranny from without.
Senator Dodd,
The person you need to reach is Senator Obama. For reasons passing understanding, he has chosen to capitulate on this issue.
I suspect the Democratic nominee for President could help you muster 41 votes -- but he's not even trying. Change we can believe in? Apparently not...
yup.
No the people he needs to reach are the other senators, of whom Obama is just one and counts as one.
Those other Senators will not go against the nominee for President. Barack Obama has the ability to stop this bill *in his hand*. Unlike anyone else, Barack's choice in this matter directly determines the final outcome.
In that respect, he bears more responsibility than *anyone* else for allowing this crime to go forward.
You are so right. Mr Dodd needs to take Obama and give him the message he can still lose this election over FISA, not to mention the other basics he was chosen on. These are the issues I found on another post that we are upset about with good cause.
1. FISA
2. faith-based initiatives
3. mental distress of the mother not grounds for abortion
4. Obama's statement that impeachment is "off the table", that it should be reserved for offenses that are more "grave" than what the Bush administration has committed
Hope is fading now, and trust is almost gone for Obama. We can always show our disgust by voting for Nader or Barr instead of Mc Cain. At this point, I cannot stomach anymore of "more of the same."
I'm not going to take it anymore. Call me a spoiler, but I will vote with my conscience---not hold my nose while I cast my vote.
Mr Obama, no, you can't! Join Mr Dodd and do the right thing.
I wanted Dodd or Biden but the media annointed Clinton and Obama as our choices without letting us hear the better alternatives. Now we suffer through this election whith our heads spinning and wondering how we got in this mess.
How do you know that? He could be working behind the scenes, which I think he is, since we went from 15 to 28. We have to keep working too and not leave it all on the shoulders of one man. There are 100 senators. Call yours.
Thank you Senator Dodd, for opposing this shameless compromise.
I wish the gentleman you threw your support to, the presumptuous nominee of our party exhibited the same courage! He didn't even have the courage to show up and vote for it; I guess he wanted to be able to say later, that he didn't vote for it! Shameless coward!
Hillary Clinton didn't vote either, which also surprises me. She could have easily voted against thi sunpopular measure.
Thank you Baden for iisting the senators who supported this. I am surprised to see my senator, Barbara Mikulski voted for it! And Sheldon Whitehouse too!
I was not surprised to see Jay Rockefeller's name among this infamous list. A few years ago he seemed to have walke dover to the other side, and has been consistently getting more conservative, hawkish, secretive, ... Used to remeber him being fairly liberal.
I think you have to understand that someone like Hillary, having just ended the Primary and thrown her support behind Obama will probvably feel duty bound to support him in his decision.
If she doesn't she may be called out on it, being divisive, not really supporting him.
For crying out loud the Hill Haters are still at it with the neocon slamming.
I am wondering if others wanting to be in Obama's cabinet or prominent in his administration also feel they might be "required" to go his way.
Just a thought.
Remember Richardson saying "Hey Vitter, after the third it don't mean anything... He'll remember you if you come out before the 3rd. (meaning Vitter should endorse before the last Primary.
If so that makes Senator Dodd all the more courageous.
Dodd Feingold '08!
people you don't HAVE to believe in as they show you by their actions.
Never mind Hillary Clinton, how about Dick Durbin, the Senior Senator from Illinois, who is a major supporter? He voted against this obamination.
The fact that he is an early and avid Obama supporter did not deter him from doing so.
BTW, I was not intending to cast any aspersions on Hillary for her non-vote.
Senator Dodd.
While I have your attention there is another matter that troubles me and gives me pause to trust your own actions. It was pointed out that you added a provision to the foreclosure bill to REQUIRE spying on American's credit card purchases.
I have posted in blogs and sent faxes to my reps to refuse to pass that bill with that provision included.
We have you on board against one spy bill yet you introduce another of your own in it's place. It has no limitations, no controls, no consumer protections about what the feds can use transaction information for, noting to protect against self incrimination short of a person canceling all of there credit cards. Applying for a new card amounts to requiring a person to waive their 5th amendment rights.
It is full of legal holes that favor government abuses with no sign of even one protection for consumers or merchants.
It is BAD LAW that could stall good law. It is a shame the way unrelated law gets inserted into other-wise good bills as a way to try to "sneak" one past the American people.
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarymanage.php?submit=view&did=8032
http://www.opednews.com/Poll/Should-the-Feds-be-handed--by-Paul-Kruger-080704-3.html
Please REMOVE this from the bill !
I completely agree. If you want to tax these transactions which for many of the poorest are their only income and do it secretly and then say" SURPRISE!!!!" in 2010, not many folks are going to like it.
Take it away. I know Chuck Grassley likes it, but consider the source.
You guys.gals gotta stop trying to pull this stuff on us or we won't trust any of you ever again. And here I was, thinking Dodd is one of my heroes!!!!!! What a fool I was!
Exactly... I could not possibly agree with you more...
And, just imagine the outcry if it was the Bush Administration who proposed these reporting procedures...
The Left would go ballistic....
But, because it's a Democrat proposing it, no one cares.... {{{{sssiiiggghhhh}}}}
Michale.....
There is also a bill I just read about requiring all online businesses to save and send the information in to???
I have to investigate that more and haven't had time.
This really disturbs me. I suppose it is primarily for the IRS to catch people who aren't reporting income on ebay, etsy.com and other sites. (which I like even less) Many people need to supplement their meager salaries or fixed incomes by selling off this and that and this could cause a big problem for them. I know several elderly people that are selling their belongings this way to pay for medications.
But that isn't the point.
I don't want government knowing what I purchase just as I don't want them to be involved in what books I check out of libraries. It isn't that I am purchasing anything illegal, it is the principal of our civil liberties.
We are going in such a terrible direction in this country.
See Chris Dodd's Profile
Q: Does this provision affect consumer privacy? Does every individual credit card transaction get reported?
A: No. Banks are not reporting individual transactions to the IRS, and so the proposal does not raise personal consumer data privacy issues. Banks are reporting the aggregate gross dollar amount the merchant received from credit card sales during the year. Only the IRS has access to the information reporting data. This proposal asks for the same type of personal taxpayer information that other information reports currently required by the IRS contain. Merchants voluntarily enter into credit card arrangements with banks and voluntarily provide private information during that process. Banks are subject to their own privacy laws and policies. Existing law already strictly protects the privacy of taxpayer records.
Q: Will this provision really achieve better tax compliance?
A: Yes. IRS research shows a 46% compliance rate without information reporting, and over 90% with information reporting. While many businesses report all their income, clearly many do not. The IRS matches information returns to filed tax returns to determine if income has been reported accurately. This reduces the burden on the IRS and honest taxpayers by identifying the underreporters.
See Chris Dodd's Profile
Q: Does this provision unfairly target online systems?
A: No. The provision is drafted in such a way that it does not burden one type of business model more than another, and keeps the type of information reported consistent among all online payment systems. The proposal addresses many of the concerns of industry stakeholders.
Q: What is the $10,000 / 200 transaction rule?
A: This means that banks are not required to issue the report to businesses that have credit card sales of less than $10,000 or have fewer than 200 transactions.
See Chris Dodd's Profile
Q: How does the reporting work?
A: Banks and online payment networks will report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS and to the participating merchant. Reportable transactions include credit card sales and on-line sales settled through a third party payment network. Participating merchants include businesses that accept a payment card as payment and online vendors whose payments are facilitated through online payment systems.
Q: Do merchants have to do the reporting? Won’t this burden small businesses with big new requirements to report transactions to the IRS?
A: No. This proposal requires banks, not businesses, to do the additional reporting. In fact, banks would report to the merchants – as well as to the IRS – the gross amount of credit and debit card payments the merchant received during the year. Taxes on any credit card transaction are already legally owed. Similarly, online networks would be required to report sales to their online sellers.
In Sweden, where the center-right government passed a version of FISA against unanimous press and overwhelming popular opinion (the Swedes are better informed than Americans, and more involved in politics), the polls now record tho opposition left parties with a commanding 56 percent approval rating compared to the right's 39. And that happened just after the vote. (Before, it was 50:50.)
Senators, take notice!
Plus, aren't you victims of spying, too? Won't your little secrets be revealed? Maybe they are already in some big corporation's dossier....!
There are precious few alternative explanations for voting against the largest part of public opinion. I like to think that's not the reason........
No, these corporations, just like the credit bureaus, keep a list of VIPs and make sure not to do anything that would get these VIPs upset with them. If they did get a VIP upset with them, their dirty deeds could be exposed, making themselves vulnerible to lawsuits and perhaps even prosecution.
In other words, the telecoms are keeping track of everyone except the biggest criminals of all, the politicians.
And maybe that is the problem. They are CYA.
If the ruling body of the land comes to and ask you to do something do you think you should be punished for it? Why are people wanting to go after the telecoms and not going after the administration? Let's sue the perps but not the ones who ordered it?
sigh...
" So this was one of the big outrages uncovered by the Church Committee -- in addition to the rampant surveillance of people like Martin Luther King.
As a result of this, Congress very wisely decided that it wasn't sufficient to simply prevent the Government from listening in on your calls - they had to create an independent duty for the telecom carries not to participate in illegal surveillance.
So they are strictly forbidden from handing over your communications and communications records to the Government without proper legal process."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/05/monarchy/index.html
The point is that the way to expose the traitorous acts of this administration is to be able to sue the telecoms. Without lawsuits, they will never be forced to provide records of the illegal spying. Immunity could be granted to these corporations in exchange for their cooperation and testimony, but obviously that is not what the Bush administration wants. By giving them carte blanche retroactive immunity, they will never have to disclose anything, protecting Bush and the other criminals in his administration from prosecution and civil suits.
As usual, the spineless dems caved in.
Because you will not know what happened, you will get no proof, no knowledge to go after the perps with out the corroboration of the telecoms. I don't care if those bringing the suits only get awarded a buck a piece, the point is to get these people on the stand so we can fully investigate the level of treason by this administration.
We will most probably not be able to pursue criminal charges since the idiot-king can issue blanket pardons.
Also, FISA is meant to hold the telecoms responsible, to hold those engaged in the collecting of the information. It doesn't matter if the President told you it is still against the law. If he told you to rob the corner store and shoot the teller you would still be tried for robbery and murder.
We are a democracy. He is a President, not a king. No one is above the law.
Read former constitutional and civil rights lawyer Glenn Greenwald's excellent columns in Salon.com who outlines all of the problems with this law.
If the telecoms are not held accountable then they have no reason to comply again. this is Precedent setting.
Because the administration refuses to cooperate with any investigations and this sleazy "president" has closed all the loopholes.
I hope if Obama is elected he will not back down on his promise to have his Attorney General
stay on these issues. We must hold this president accountable.
Here is a link to Glenn Greenwalds latest article (I haven't checked today, he may have another.
He has an amazing series of articles and links that outline the whole issue step by step.
http://tinyurl.com/5ov2dn
Also read this great commentary by Joe Galloway on McClatchy
http://tinyurl.com/63luu8
"The questions I pose are these:
How can even one senator on either side of the aisle in good conscience vote in favor of this law that does nothing to enhance our security and everything to diminish our rights as a free people?
How can both men who seek to become our next president cast such a vote when both should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder declaring that they would govern by our consent and with our approval, not by wielding the coercive and corrosive and corrupt powers that King George III and his latter-day namesake from Texas thought are theirs by divine right?"
PS
We don't have a "ruling" body.
We have a serving body, a representative body, a governing body who are supposed to be subject to the will of the people.
Senator Dodd,
Thank you for being my voice and the voice of millions of Americans in the face of such overwhelming odds. Thank you for your conscience, your wisdom, and your belief in the United States Constitution and the Rule of Law---and most importantly your willingness to fight for it..
Thank you for your integrity and determination, Senator Dodd. Keep up the good fight.
These telecom companies did very little wrong when compared to the crimes of the White House and the complicity of Congress. It's not like the telecom companies were selling our information to foreign agents, marketers or criminals. They were forced by the NSA on an order from the White House. And you and you collegues did nothing.
You, Senator Dodd are just as guilty as Bush and the NSA until you put a stop to this. And this bill has nothing to do with it. You need to impeach. You have enough evidence of at least 20+ crimes against the Constitution and Bush's Oath of Office.
Impeach now, or you are just as guilty for letting it continue.
Why would Dodd be guilty when he has been trying to stop it since he learned of it. Under your theory, you are just as guilty as he.
This and the following comment are patently speculative. You don't know the role of the telcos -- it may have been central -- nor do you know what information they collected or what's been done with it.
It would be the height of folly to protect the thieves while prosecuting the persons buying his stolen goods.
And in this case, if you protect the thieves -- the telcos -- there will be prosecutions of no one.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
